MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tilletia laevis Kühn and Tilletia controversa Kühn reprogrammed the development of wheat anther

2023· preprint· en· W4313379480 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Li Gao, Mingke Fang, Delai Chen, Ting He, Huanyu Jia, Yazhen Yang, Qingyun Guo, Wanquan Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Interactions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyStamenTapetumMicrosporaBotanyMicrosporePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tilletia laevis cause common bunt and Tilletia controversa cause dwarf bunt of wheat. Both pathogens can cause fungus galls which replace with wheat grains and lead to the total loss of wheat yields. To better understand disease progression, confocal microscopy was used to construct the timeline of cell development of healthy wheat anthers, and which was approved by analyzing the expression level of some developmental and program cell death genes. Based on comparing with normal healthy anthers, tapetum cells should be disappeared at 1300 µm, but in T. laevis infected anthers, tapetum cells was visible in 2100 µm of T. controversa infected anthers. For the anthers infected by T. laevis and T. controversa , cell size and counts showed significant difference with normal anther cells. Additionally, for the anthers of five developmental stages, transcriptome profile and infected five developmental stages were also analyzed. Furthermore, we established virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) for wheat bunt pathogens. Based on RNA-Seq data, TaEC in wheat anther were validated to contribute to the resistance to both bunt pathogens. This study firstly constructed the development timeline of wheat anthers and firstly constructed VIGS system to explore the interaction of both bunt pathogens with wheat anther development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant and Fungal Interactions ResearchFrench-language works237,207